Jase wrote:I do wonder how many no voters that are "hiding". What I mean is, they plan to vote no, but when people ask them they will say yes, just to keep the peace...
Hey I'm voting yes, but I'm sure there are others who plan to vote no but don't want any agro...
Sent from my F8131 using Tapatalk
Shy Tory Factor.
Wouldn't surprise me if the no vote gets up unfortunately, plenty of older people like my mother who have gay friends but grew up in catholic households and consider marriage between anything other than a man and a woman 'wrong'.
"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment" – Warren Bennis
Jase wrote:I do wonder how many no voters that are "hiding". What I mean is, they plan to vote no, but when people ask them they will say yes, just to keep the peace...
Hey I'm voting yes, but I'm sure there are others who plan to vote no but don't want any agro...
Sent from my F8131 using Tapatalk
Any wonder So much for the gay people being vilified
Jase wrote:I do wonder how many no voters that are "hiding". What I mean is, they plan to vote no, but when people ask them they will say yes, just to keep the peace...
Hey I'm voting yes, but I'm sure there are others who plan to vote no but don't want any agro...
Sent from my F8131 using Tapatalk
Any wonder So much for the gay people being vilified
Oh my, those poor snowflakes being challenged for their homophobia.
Jase wrote:I do wonder how many no voters that are "hiding". What I mean is, they plan to vote no, but when people ask them they will say yes, just to keep the peace...
Hey I'm voting yes, but I'm sure there are others who plan to vote no but don't want any agro...
Sent from my F8131 using Tapatalk
Any wonder So much for the gay people being vilified
Oh my, those poor snowflakes being challenged for their homophobia.
Meanwhile, in Melbourne:
Anyone who votes no is a homophobic Thank you for proving my point
See, this is why Trump got voted in when the most vocal people didn't think it was possible.
Once you start labeling people for being on a certain side, they keep their opinion to themselves, and when it's time to vote, theirs still counts as much as anyone's.
And when you start calling people names, and singling them out, communication shuts down. So there goes any chance of rational discussion that may actually change their mind, and vote.
Once you shout someone down, they're going to double down on their point of view.
I wouldn't be surprised if the No vote gets up, purely for this reason.
HH3 wrote:See, this is why Trump got voted in when the most vocal people didn't think it was possible.
Trump didn't get in because of cultural backlash. Middle class economic disenfranchisement was a key factor.
HH3 wrote:Once you start labeling people for being on a certain side, they keep their opinion to themselves, and when it's time to vote, theirs still counts as much as anyone's.
And when you start calling people names, and singling them out, communication shuts down. So there goes any chance of rational discussion that may actually change their mind, and vote.
Once you shout someone down, they're going to double down on their point of view.
You're under the assumption that the 38% currently voting 'no' would, under any circumstance change, their vote. You can be as polite as you want, but they aren't going to change, just as the 58% voting 'yes' aren't going to change.
Q. wrote:I'm yet to see any other reason for voting no.
Have you actually asked someone, or just called them a homophobe?
I had a couple of friends tag the Coopers ad on my wife's and my FB page I asked them whether they watched the video; and no they hadn't When the Heineken ad came out, I tagged them back and got no response
HH3 wrote:See, this is why Trump got voted in when the most vocal people didn't think it was possible.
Trump didn't get in because of cultural backlash. Middle class economic disenfranchisement was a key factor.
HH3 wrote:Once you start labeling people for being on a certain side, they keep their opinion to themselves, and when it's time to vote, theirs still counts as much as anyone's.
And when you start calling people names, and singling them out, communication shuts down. So there goes any chance of rational discussion that may actually change their mind, and vote.
Once you shout someone down, they're going to double down on their point of view.
You're under the assumption that the 38% currently voting 'no' would, under any circumstance change, their vote. You can be as polite as you want, but they aren't going to change, just as the 58% voting 'yes' aren't going to change.
That's a terrible attitude to have.
Obviously the YES voters arent going to change their vote.
But people on the NO side should be engaged in rational conversation, not just labeled homophobes.
How's that any different from people labeling gay people pedophiles? Where's your proof if you don't give them the chance to explain themselves?
Trump talking about building a wall didn't have anything to do with it? And the reasons weren't what I was talking about. It was the way people went about demonizing people on the other side.
We engage in motivated reasoning as a way to avoid or lessen cognitive dissonance, the mental discomfort we experience when confronted by contradictory information, especially on matters that directly relate to our well-being.
Someone watching this, but not participating, just rang me to say they are now voting No because they're sick of the bully boy attitude of the Yes voters Like me, he had the "phone call".
There are a couple here in my business who have also had the aggressive & intrusive phone call
To me, it's now turning from the reasons why or why not to an anger response vote
Jimmy_041 wrote:Someone watching this, but not participating, just rang me to say they are now voting No because they're sick of the bully boy attitude of the Yes voters Like me, he had the "phone call".
There are a couple here in my business who have also had the aggressive & intrusive phone call
To me, it's now turning from the reasons why or why not to an anger response vote
I love how people on the no side of this issue can simultaneously complain about being "bullied" whilst thinking it's ok to deny a whole section of the community the same rights that they enjoy.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
If you wanna vote no bloody grow a pair and own your decision. I still won't respect you for it though. They clearly don't respect the yes voters so why should I respect them.
Jimmy_041 wrote:Someone watching this, but not participating, just rang me to say they are now voting No because they're sick of the bully boy attitude of the Yes voters Like me, he had the "phone call".
There are a couple here in my business who have also had the aggressive & intrusive phone call
To me, it's now turning from the reasons why or why not to an anger response vote
I love how people on the no side of this issue can simultaneously complain about being "bullied" whilst thinking it's ok to deny a whole section of the community the same rights that they enjoy.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
If you wanna vote no bloody grow a pair and own your decision. I still won't respect you for it though. They clearly don't respect the yes voters so why should I respect them.
There's hypocrisy on both sides.
My stance isn't that their position is right. It's that instead of instantly bullying them, or labeling them something inflammatory, the YES side should engage in a meaningful conversation with the NO side.
Sure, you're gonna get people that aren't responsive to it, but if you change even a few people's minds, its worth it.
